So I read this article on the
Duck of Minerva about a week ago and I had a bit of a visceral and angry reaction to it. I saved it to read later, and am now re-reading it. In this article, Mackenzie talks about the standards of combat for men and women and concludes that for a number of reasons there should be a re-evaluation of the physical standards of combat so that the military will not remain "behind."
If standards don’t change, inevitably, very few women will ‘make the (male) cut’ into combat roles, including into the Marines. But a lack of change will also keep the entire military behind. There is a need to develop physical standards that reflect modern warfare, recognise areas that women excel physically- including in endurance and flexibility, and changing a sexist culture that values bands of brothers and men’s bodies over all else.
Mackenzie discuses both the changing nature of combat, and the fact that all soldiers (male and female) receive combat training, but is upset at the apparently anachronistic physical standards required for combat missions. I have a number of problems with the article.
First, is the conflation of the fact that our most recent wars have a different character than past conflicts means that there is no difference between military tasks. This is not true, and it is laughable on its face. Even someone with only a cursory understanding of warfare will understand that there are different physical abilities needed for driving a truck versus fighting in the infantry. These different physical standards limit the number of men who are allowed to do certain highly physical tasks.
Combat training - and remember that basic training is just that: Basic Combat Training - is designed to make every soldier a minimally proficient soldier. This applies to men, women, intelligence specialists, truck drivers, mechanics, cooks, etc. When I went through basic training in the summer of 2001 it was at Fort Jackson, South Carolina - in an integrated male-female basic training. Something that has been around since the early 1990s. We were all soldiers in combat support roles. I was in intelligence. Others in my platoon were intelligence, some were clerks, some were cooks, and some were mechanics. Many of the females were going on to be medics.
At some point - based on the fact that we were in the Army - we could expect to be in combat. But combat for the infantry has a very different nature than that of the intelligence specialist and truck driver. Yes, in Iraq, women are in convoys that are attacked, are on bases that are attacked, or may be part of patrols and teams that come under fire. Having basic skills is key. This is different than the task that was given to the Marines in the battle of Fallujah. It is different than the skills used by the 3rd Infantry Division and 101st Airborne in 2003 in fighting against regular military and irregular militia in the beginning part of the war in Iraq. I know because that is who I was with - as an intelligence guy assigned to an infantry unit. And I was not prepared. I am a big man - 6'4" who at the time was in the best shape of my life. And I was out of my depth. I did not have the training to be doing what was done.
The purpose of the military is to fight and win battles. Combat roles are open to women who meet the standards. I am not convinced that Mackenzie has made a cogent argument about why those standards should be relaxed.
 |
| In Mosul in May 2003 - after I had already traveled across the whole country with the Infantry. Flying in helicopters is so much easier. |
